The couple attended marriage counselling from late 2023 to November 2024 and separated in December 2024.
Picture: iStock
The Western Cape High Court has found that a wife inflated her expenses to extract as much maintenance as possible from her husband.
Judge Pinda Njokweni delivered the interim order in the matter this week, which will be in effect pending the finalisation of the divorce proceedings.
The wife, the applicant in the matter, claimed maintenance for herself and the couple’s two minor children, aged 12 and 14, as well as a contribution to her legal costs (R300 000).
The husband opposed the application, contending that the maintenance claims were excessive and unsubstantiated.
According to the court papers, the couple married on 3 January 2002. Their marital difficulties arose towards the end of September 2023. During this time, the wife requested that the husband vacate the marital bedroom.
The couple attended marriage counselling from late 2023 to November 2024 and separated in December 2024. The marriage subsequently broke down irretrievably.
Maintenance demands
The wife approached the court seeking an order requiring both parties to remain co-guardians of the children. She also wanted the children to reside primarily with her at the matrimonial home, and payment of R59 100 per month.
She further wanted the husband to pay the bond instalments, municipal rates and taxes, water and electricity, levies and household insurance in respect of the matrimonial home, a gardener (three days per week, at a maximum of R300 per day) and a cleaner (two days per week, at a maximum of R300 per day).
The wife further wanted the husband to retain her and the children as dependents on his medical aid and to pay all uncovered medical expenses and all educational costs, including school fees, extramural activities, equipment, and related expenses.
She also wanted him to cover the car’s finance instalments, insurance, licensing, maintenance, and repairs.
She told the court that the husband had significantly reduced his maintenance contributions to her and the children, and threatened to curtail financial support for domestic services and the children’s extramural activities.
In support of her application, she filed a sworn statement detailing her monthly income and expenses, as well as a summary of her assets and liabilities. She said she had freelance consulting income, averaging R9 000 per month over the preceding twelve months and occasional ad hoc payments for project-based work.
Husband’s bonus
The wife claimed total monthly expenses amounting to R59 100. She further accused her husband of failing to properly disclose his financial position and to take his bonus into account.
She said her husband’s bonus significantly increases his average monthly income, enabling him to meet her maintenance demands. However, the husband told the court that he does not anticipate receiving a significant bonus in 2026 because his employer’s targets have not been met.
But the wife’s legal representatives submitted that the husband had received these bonuses in previous years, although only the 2025 bonus is alleged in the founding affidavit. They further submitted that past conduct is the best indicator of future conduct, and, for this reason, the husband’s bonus, which he has not yet received, should be taken into consideration.
Opposing arguments
The husband denied the allegations and provided a “sufficient” explanation in his answering affidavit.
He pointed out numerous instances of double-counting and overinflated expenses in the wife’s monthly expenses, with certain expenses (i.e., the children’s extramural activities) having increased from R2 500 per month to R8 000 per month.
“I agree with the Respondent’s counsel that the Applicant inflated her expenses to extract as much maintenance from the Respondent as possible,” commented Judge Njokweni.
In response, the wife said it was “regretful” that some errors and double-counting had made their way into her monthly expense schedule and apologised for them. However, her supplementary affidavit did not explain why or how the errors occurred.
Reductions
The wife further failed to explain her reduction in grocery expenditure from R19 000 to R15 000, despite conceding in her draft Order that the children would be in her care for only 50% of the time, not 60% as alleged.
In her supplementary affidavit, she reduced her maintenance need from R59 100 to R44 000. However, the husband’s representatives argued for further reductions.
“I agree with the Respondent’s counsel’s submissions that this amount could be further reduced when the overstated grocery budget is taken into account.
“Against the Applicant’s overstated expenses and the deliberate non-disclosure of her finances, neither the Court nor the Respondent is in a position to determine whether the Applicant has in fact established a need for maintenance,” commented Judge Njokweni.
Loans
The wife further pointed out loans amounting to R840 000, but the judge said the loan accounts in the founding and supplementary affidavits contradicted each other.
“The allegations regarding the Applicant’s loans in her founding affidavit were made solely to depict the Respondent as financially abusive towards her, creating the impression that the Applicant has been left with no money to care for herself and the children,” commented Judge Njokweni.
“Of further concern is that the Applicant alleges in her supplementary affidavit that her loans exceed R840,000, yet she fails to disclose to the Court the value of the loans or with whom she incurred them.
“Since the Applicant’s allegations in her supplementary affidavit confirm the Respondent’s allegations in his answering affidavit, it can be accepted that the Applicant intended to paint a picture to suit her narrative, which was far from the truth.
“The Court and the Respondent are left in the dark as to how much the Applicant actually owes, especially in view of the fact that the Applicant had a further opportunity (in her supplementary affidavit) to make a full and frank disclosure, yet elected not to do so.”
Court order on maintenance
Judge Njokweni said after considering the evidence before him, he was inclined to dismiss the wife’s application for interim relief pending finalisation of the divorce action.
“However, because it also implicates maintenance for the parties’ minor children, I decided against my initial inclination (to dismiss the application) and instead granted an order rebuking the Applicant’s demeanour in this application while still providing a judicially sanctioned maintenance regime for her and the minor children pendente lite,” commented Judge Njokweni.
The judge ordered the husband to:
Pay the wife, for a period not exceeding 12 months, R25 000 per month, and to make monthly payments of the bond instalment, rates, taxes and services (including water and electricity) due to the municipality for the matrimonial home.
Retain the wife and children as dependents on his medical aid scheme and pay all reasonably incurred medical expenses (including dental, pharmaceutical, surgical, hospital, etc.) not covered by the medical aid.
Make payment for the children’s reasonable educational costs, including school fees, additional tuition, uniforms, books, and textbooks (paid directly to service providers).
Pay the wife’s motor vehicle insurance and the costs of licensing, maintenance, repairs, and servicing (including the replacement of tyres and wheel balancing).
Contribute R40 000 towards her legal costs in the pending divorce proceedings, payable no later than 30 July 2026 (to be paid into her attorney’s trust account).
“Should the Applicant’s income not improve or worsen on expiry of the aforesaid 12-month period, the Applicant is granted leave, on the same papers, duly supplemented, if necessary, to apply to this Court for the variation of this order,” ordered Judge Njokweni.
